Woman rescues her friend from car crash and ends up getting sued

[castle007]

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?cl=11186852

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081218/ap_on_re_us/samaritan_protection

 

Unfucking believable!!! How is this even possible? People are getting sued for saving other people's lives. (reminds me of the incredibles) 

The friend should have left that bitch in the car. She should be grateful that she is not dead.

And as the video says, it is kind of sad that we need a court ruling to tell us when we can and can't help other people. Fucked up world 

Proving that no good deed goes unpunished, the state's high court on Thursday said a would-be Good Samaritan accused of rendering her friend paraplegic by pulling her from a wrecked car "like a rag doll" can be sued.

California's Supreme Court ruled that the state's Good Samaritan law only protects people from liability if the are administering emergency medical care, and that Lisa Torti's attempted rescue of her friend didn't qualify.

Justice Carlos Moreno wrote for a unanimous court that a person is not obligated to come to someone's aid.

"If, however, a person elects to come to someone's aid, he or she has a duty to exercise due care," he wrote.

Torti had argued that she should still be protected from a lawsuit because she was giving "medical care" when she pulled her friend from a car wreck.

Alexandra Van Horn was in the front passenger seat of a car that slammed into a light pole at 45 mph on Nov. 1, 2004, according to her negligence lawsuit.

Torti was a passenger in a car that was following behind the vehicle and stopped after the crash. Torti said when she came across the wreck she feared the car was going to explode and pulled Van Horn out. Van Horn testified that Torti pulled her out of the wreckage "like a rag doll." Van Horn blamed her friend for her paralysis.

Whether Torti is ultimately liable is still to be determined, but Van Horn's lawsuit can go forward, the Supreme Court ruled.

Beverly Hills lawyer Robert Hutchinson, who represented Van Horn, said he's pleased with the ruling.

Torti's attorney, Ronald Kent, of Los Angeles didn't immediately return a telephone call.

[xnikki118x]

I just saw that on Yahoo. That is seriously so fucked up.

[BlueTsunami]

So the friend is sueing? Wow. I mean, everyone knows that pulling someone from an accident where spine trauma is possible is a bad idea but sometimes, in the heat of the moment, these sort of things slip your mind (its not like shes a trained paramedic). Horrible ruling.

[fistfulofmetal]

Well the girl is responsible for her friend being paralyzed. She should have to suffer some consequences.

[OptimoPeach]

Shoulda let her burn

[brawndolicious]

Well the girl is responsible for her friend being paralyzed. She should have to suffer some consequences.

the thread title isn't exactly honest.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

She probably needs the money for medical expenses or even life expenses, which will be a lot harder to pay now that she's paralyzed. She can't live for herself anymore - she'll need someone to hold her hand for the rest of her life - a baby that can never grow up.

I don't think the friend is being an asshole here...

[HyperZoneWasAwesome]

so apparently the victim suffered a so far untreated brain injury as well.

[AdmiralViscen]

Moron though, cars rarely explode and you should know not to move someone if you don't have to.

[Diunx]

Shit like this is why I don't help people.

[Great Rumbler]

If the car was actually on fire or there was a clear danger that it would at any moment, the friend is a moron. If not...well...she is almost completely paralyzed now, seemingly at least partially because of being pulled from the car [although that's probably not totally clear] and will have a lot of expenses that need to be paid over the rest of her life.

It really depends on details that the article doesn't mention.

[Flannel Boy]

Unfucking believable!!! How is this even possible? People are getting sued for saving other people's lives. (reminds me of the incredibles) 

The story you posted was light on facts. After searching around the web, I don't understand your outrage.

She didn't save her life. There was no reason to believe that the car was going explode, and according to witnesses at the scene, there was no outward evidence, such as smoke, to indicate such a danger. Additionally, the defendant left the plaintiff by the side of the car. This is inconsistent with the defendant's reasoning for why she dragged her out of the car. If you think the car is going to explode, you don't leave the victim right next to the car.

A reasonable person doesn't drag someone out of a car after they've been in a serious car collision. Such careless conduct can obviously aggravate a person's injuries. That's why emergency worker's are so careful when they attempt to remove a victim from a car wreck.

Obviously there are policy reasons for shielding a would-be-rescuer from lawsuits. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean that anyone who acts in a rescue situation (or what they perceive to be as a rescue situation) should be allowed to act negligently.

The biggest problem for the plaintiff is proving cause.

[Oblivion]

MALEK!